ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Evaluation and comparison of one-step real-time PCR and one-step RT-LAMP methods for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simultaneous and sensitive detection ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP): An Innovative Approach for the Environmental Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing disease trend for SARS-COV-2, so need a quick and affordable diagnostic method. It should be highly accurate and save costs compared to other methods. The purpose of this research is to achieve these goals.
methodsThis study analyzed 342 samples using TaqMan One-Step RT-qPCR and fast One-Step RT-LAMP (Reverse Transcriptase Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification). The One-Step LAMP assay was conducted to assess the sensitivity and specificity.
resultsThe research reported positive samples using two different methods. In the RT-LAMP method, saliva had 92 positive samples (26.9%) and 250 negative samples (73.09%) and nasopharynx had 94 positive samples (27.4%) and 248 negative samples (72.51%). In the RT-qPCR method, saliva had 86 positive samples (25.1%) and 256 negative samples (74.8%) and nasopharynx had 93 positive samples (27.1%) and 249 negative samples (72.8%). The agreement between the two tests in saliva and nasopharynx samples was 93% and 94% respectively, based on Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) (P < 0.001). The rate of sensitivity in this technique was reported at a dilution of 1 × 10
conclusionsBased on the results of the study the One-Step LAMP assay has multiple advantages. These include simplicity, cost-effectiveness, high sensitivity, and specificity. The One-Step LAMP assay shows promise as a diagnostic tool. It can help manage disease outbreaks, ensure prompt treatment, and safeguard public health by providing rapid, easy-to-use testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.